America’s Energy Future:
Technology and Transformation
April 2010
Peter D. Blair
National Research Council
Key Forces Shaping U.S. Energy Situation
• Increasing world energy demand, particularly in
developing nations, especially China, tighten markets.
• U.S. oil imports comprise nearly 60 percent of the U.S. oil
use, up from 40 percent in 1990—alternatives are limited
in the short run, especially in transportation.
• Energy price volatility has been unprecedented in last two
years, continuing to complicate market decisions.
• Long term reliability of traditional energy sources,
especially oil, is uncertain and will continue to be so.
• Mounting concerns about global climate change, largely
from burning fossil fuels that provide most world energy,
are increasingly a significant factor in energy decisions.
• U.S. Energy infrastructure is massive and slowly adapts to
change and is increasingly vulnerable to natural disasters
and terrorism.
•2
Key Objectives of America’s Energy Future (AEF)
“Foundational Study” (Phase 1)
• Provide transparent and authoritative
estimates of the current contributions and
future potential of existing and new energy
supply and demand technologies, impacts
and costs, focusing on the next two decades.
• Resolve conflicting analyses.
To facilitate a productive national policy
dialogue about the nation’s energy future
•3
America’s Energy Future:
Technology Opportunities,
Risks, and Tradeoffs
July 2009
http://www.nationalacademies.org/energy
October 2008
May 20, 2009
June 15, 2009
December 9, 2009
•4
America’s Energy Future Study Committee
• Harold T. Shapiro - (Chair), Princeton University
• Mark S. Wrighton - (Vice Chair), Washington
University
• John F. Ahearne, Sigma Xi, The Scientific
Research Society
• Allen J. Bard, University of Texas at Austin
•Jan Beyea, Consulting in the Public Interest
• W. F. Brinkman**, Princeton University
• Douglas M. Chapin, MPR Associates, Inc.
• Steven Chu*, E. O. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory
• Christine A. Ehlig-Economides, Texas A&M
University
• Robert W. Fri, Resources for the Future, Inc.
• Charles Goodman, Southern Company (Ret.)
• John B. Heywood, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
• Lester B. Lave, Carnegie Mellon University
•James J. Markowsky***, American Electric
Power (Ret.)
•Richard A. Meserve, Carnegie Institution of
Washington
•Warren F. Miller, Jr.****, Texas A&M
University-College Station
•Franklin M. Orr, Jr., Stanford University
•Lawrence T. Papay, PQR, LLC
•Aristides A.N. Patrinos, Synthetic Genomics
•Michael P. Ramage, ExxonMobil Research
and Engineering (Ret.)
•Maxine L. Savitz*****, Honeywell Inc. (Ret.)
•Robert H. Socolow, Princeton University
•James L. Sweeney, Stanford University
•G. David Tilman, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis
•C. Michael Walton, University of Texas at
Austin
*Resigned, January 20, 2009 upon confirmation as U.S. Secretary of Energy
**Confirmed as U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Director of Office of Science, June 20, 2009
***Nominated as U.S. DOE Assistant Secretary of Fossil Energy
****Nominated as U.S. DOE Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy
*****Appointed President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)
•
•
25 members (80% academy members)
Expertise spans science, technology & economics
•5
America’s Energy Future: Project Structure
Reports
Phase I
Committee on America's Energy Future
•63 committee &
panel members
•22 consultants
•12 principal staff
•dozens of
workshop
participants
•62 reviewers of 5
reports
America's Energy Future:
Technology and
Transformation
Committee Subgroups
Additional Study Panels
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency Panel
Real Prospects for Energy
Efficiency in the United
States
Renewable
Electric Power Panel
Electricity from Renewable
Resources
Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas
Nuclear Power
Renewable Energy
Alternative Fuels
Electric Power Transmission &
Distribution
Reference Technology
Scenarios
Alternative Liquid
Transportation Fuels
Panel
Liquid Transportation
Fuels from Coal and
Biomass
The National Academies Summit on
America's Energy Future
Phase II
•6
America’s Energy Future
Project Sponsorship
To minimize any perception of bias, a
broad range of sponsors was engaged:
• U.S. Department of Energy
• Kavli and Keck Foundations
• Dow Chemical, General Electric,
Intel, General Motors, and BP
• The National Academies
•7
Basic Concerns/Motivations: AEF Point of Departure
● Environmental concerns emanating from burning fossil
fuels with inadequate accounting for environmental
externalities not captured in energy markets.
● National security concerns emanating from falling
domestic production of petroleum, dependence on
fragile economic supply chains, vulnerability of the
electric power grid and transportation sector, and
issues of nuclear safety and proliferation.
● Economic competitiveness in the face of volatile prices
for energy supplies and uncertainties that surround
energy and commodity supply chains.
•8
Initial Conditions: U.S. Energy Sector
● The U.S. is a large and not very efficient user of energy.
● Dividends available by increasing energy efficiency
● 85% of our energy is created through the burning of
fossil fuels using traditional technologies.
● Contributes to a very serious environmental problem
● Much of the U.S. energy sector physical assets are old
and deteriorating.
● T&D system needs upgrade for growth and modernization
● Nuclear plants constructed largely in the 1970’s and 1980’s
● Coal plants are aging, inefficient and environmentally suspect
● Domestic petroleum reserves being depleted
● Transportation sector is almost fully dependent on
petroleum, much of which is imported and the worldwide
demand is likely to grow faster than worldwide reserves.
•9
AEF “Global” Conclusion
The only way to meet the concerns identified given our
initial conditions is to embark on a sustained effort to
transform the manner in which we produce and
consume energy.
Transforming the Energy Sector
The AEF committee carefully considered some of the
critical technological options (including their costs
and limitations) that might be deployed in pursuing a
transformation of the energy sector that would meet
the identified economic, environmental and national
security concerns.
•10
Technology Options Considered:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Energy efficiency
Alternative transportation fuels
Renewable electric power generation
Natural gas and advanced coal-fired power generation and
CO2 capture and storage
Nuclear power
Electric power transmission, distribution, control and storage
Options Not Considered:
●
●
●
Conservation—lifestyle changes
Improvements in exploration, extraction and transportation
of primary energy sources.
Fuller assessment of world wide primary energy resources
NOTE: Potential contributions from technology options
are addressed on a technology by technology basis; the
committee did not conduct an integrated assessment or
forecast of market competition and adoption.
•11
Finding 1: Potential for Transformational Change
With a sustained national commitment, the
United States could obtain substantial energyefficiency improvements, new sources of energy,
and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
through the accelerated deployment of existing
and emerging energy-supply and end-use
technologies.
2008
2020
“Bucket 1”
2035
“Bucket 2”
2040
2050
“Bucket 3”
•12
Finding 2: Energy Efficiency Potential
The deployment of existing energy-efficiency
technologies is the nearest-term and lowest-cost
option for moderating our nation’s demand for
energy, especially over the next decade.
2008
2020
2035
2040
2050
15 Percent (15-17 Quads) by 2020
30 Percent (32-35 Quads) by 2030
NOTE: Even greater savings would be
possible with more aggressive policies
and incentives.
•13
Potential Electricity Savings in Commercial and
Residential Buildings, 2020 and 2030
•14
Finding 3: Electricity Supply Options
The United States has many promising
options for obtaining new supplies of electricity
and changing its supply mix during the next two
to three decades, especially if carbon capture
and storage (CCS) and evolutionary nuclear
technologies can be deployed at required
scales.
However, the deployment of these new
supply technologies is very likely to result in
higher consumer prices for electricity.
Current 2008
2020
2035
500
0
74
63
95
1100
1200
1800
63
790
Terawatt-hours
Renewables
Coal CCS Retrofits
New Coal CCS
Nuclear Power Uprates
New Nuclear Power Plants
340
2000 ***
800
****
***conventional coal
****existing nuclear
NOTE: Estimates are not additive
•15
Prospects for Renewable Electric Power in the U.S.
•16
Future of Coal with Carbon Capture
and Sequestration: Retrofits and New Supply
•17
Prospects for Nuclear Power in the U.S.
•18
Levelized Cost of Electricity Generation
•19
Demonstration of Technology at Scale
To clarify our options for the future, we must:
● Demonstrate whether carbon capture and storage (CCS)
technologies for sequestering carbon from the use of coal and
natural gas to generate electricity are technically and commercially
viable for application to both existing and new power plants—will
require the construction of ~15-20 retrofit and new demonstration
plants with CCS featuring a variety of feedstocks, generation
technologies, carbon capture strategies, and geology before 2020.
● Demonstrate whether evolutionary nuclear technologies are
commercially viable in the United States by constructing a suite of
about five plants during the next decade.
Failure to do this during the next decade would greatly restrict
options to reduce the electricity sector’s CO2 emissions over
succeeding decades. The urgency of getting started cannot be
overstated.
•20
Finding 4: Modernizing the Nation’s Power Grid
Expansion and modernization of the nation’s
electrical transmission and distribution systems
(i.e., the power grid) are urgently needed.
The AEF Committee estimates that it would cost (in
2007 dollars) $175 billion for expansion and $50 billion
for modernization of the transmission system when
they are done concurrently and $470 billion for
expansion and $170 billion for modernization of the
distribution system (again done concurrently).
•21
Modernizing the Nation’s Electricity Grid
• Increasing congestion threatens reliability,
reduces efficiency, and increases system
vulnerability
• Transmission systems are subject to
cascading failures
• Current systems have limited ability to
accommodate new sources of supply,
especially intermittent wind and solar energy
sources, and sophisticated demand-side
technologies.
•22
Moving Toward the “Smart Grid”
• Deploy advanced communication and control
to facilitate improved reliability and security
• Enable more efficient use of distributed
generation sources over much wider areas
• Deploy advanced metering
• Accommodate higher penetration of
intermittent sources such as wind and solar
• Increase dispatchable energy storage
• Utilize load management and improved ability
to control end-use demand
•23
Finding 5: Continued Dependence on Oil
Petroleum will continue to be an indispensable
transportation fuel through at least 2035.
EIA Reference Case through 2030
Transportation
Million barrels of gasoline equivalent per day
Million Barrels of Gasoline
Equivalent Per Day
Cellulosic Ethanol
Coal to Liquids with CCS
Coal-and-biomass-to-Liquids
Total Energy
Quadrillion Btu per year
Current 2008
0
0
0
2020
2035
0.5
0
0
Reminder: Estimates are not additive
1.7
3
2.5
•24
Reducing Dependence on Oil
• Options are limited for replacing petroleum or
reducing petroleum use before 2020.
• More substantial longer-term options could
begin to make contributions in the 2020-2035
timeframe.
• Options include: increasing vehicle efficiency,
replacing imported petroleum with other
liquid fuels produced from biomass and coal
(with CO2 emissions similar to or less than
that of oil-based fuels), and electrifying the
light-duty fleet.
•25
Prospects for Alternative Liquid Fuels in the U.S.
●
About 550 million tons/year of biomass can be
sustainably produced in the U.S. without incurring
significant direct or indirect greenhouse gas emissions.
●
Cellulosic ethanol and other liquid fuels made from this
biomass or from coal-biomass mixtures with Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS) reduce greenhouse U.S. gas
emissions and increase U.S energy security.
●
Timely commercial deployment may hinge on adoption
of fuel standards and a carbon price, and on accelerated
federal investment in essential technologies.
•26
Finding 6: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction
Substantial reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions from the electricity sector are
achievable over the next two to three decades
through a portfolio approach involving the
widespread deployment of energy efficiency;
renewable energy; coal, natural gas, and biomass
with CCS; and nuclear technologies.
Displacing a large proportion of petroleum as a
transportation fuel to achieve substantial
greenhouse gas reductions over the next two to
three decades will also require a portfolio
approach involving the widespread deployment of
energy efficiency technologies, alternative liquid
fuels with low CO2 emissions, and light-duty
vehicle electrification technologies.
•27
Estimated Life-Cycle Greenhouse Emissions
from Electricity Generation Technologies
•28
Finding 7: Technology Research & Development
To enable accelerated deployments of new
energy technologies starting around 2020, and to
ensure that innovative ideas continue to be
explored, the public and private sectors will need
to perform extensive research, development, and
demonstration over the next decade.
Some Key Technology Pathways:
• Coal and natural gas with CCS
• Evolutionary nuclear power plants
• Integrated gas-combined cycle and advanced
coal technologies to improve performance of
coal-fired electricity generation
• Thermo-chemical conversion of coal and
coal/biomass mixtures to liquid fuels
• Cellulosic ethanol
• Advanced light-duty vehicles
•29
Key Technology Development Pathways
• Coal and natural gas with CCS
• Evolutionary nuclear power plants
• Integrated gas-combined cycle and advanced
coal technologies to improve performance of
coal-fired electricity generation
• Thermo-chemical conversion of coal and
coal/biomass mixtures to liquid fuels
• Cellulosic ethanol
• Advanced light-duty vehicles
•30
Key Research and Development Areas
• Sustained R&D in improving energy efficiency
• Advanced biosciences
• Liquid fuels from renewable sources
• Advanced biomass
• Photovoltaic materials and manufacturing
• Advanced batteries and fuel cells
• Large-scale electricity storage
• Oil and gas extraction from shale and hydrates
• Advanced nuclear fuel cycles
• Geoengineering
•31
Finding 8: Barriers to Accelerated Deployment
A number of barriers could delay or even
prevent the accelerated deployment of the
energy-supply and end-use technologies
described in this report.
Policy and regulatory actions, as well as other
incentives, will be required to overcome these
barriers.
•32
Barriers to Accelerated Deployment
• Lack of private sector investments for
technology deployment
• Low turnover rate of capital-intensive
infrastructure
• Resource and supply barriers
• Public policy uncertainties
• Coupling commercial deployment of energy
supply technologies with key supporting
technologies
• Regional Differences
• Lack of product-energy efficiency standards
• Investment in new energy infrastructure
•33
Some Closing Observations
• Progress between now and 2020 will largely
determine outcomes for 2050.
• Creating additional technology options is
essential.
• Turnover of existing capital stock is highly
uncertain, especially in the electric power
sector.
•34
Historical Energy Policy Context
In the United States energy policy is largely a
derivative policy with its roots in economic,
national security, and environmental policies
and with shifting priorities over time among
those policies.
economic
vitality
climate
change
Energy
Energy
Policy
Policy
national
security
•35
Current Policy Context
― Energy and climate change legislation
developing and moving in both House and
Senate:
― H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and
Security Act of 2009 (“Waxman-Markey
Bill”)
― S. 1733, Clean Energy Jobs and
American Power Act (“Kerry-Boxer Bill”)
― S.1462, American Clean Energy
Leadership Act of 2009, (“Bingaman Bill”)
― Continuing implementation of American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
highlights energy
― Energy and climate continues to be a highpriority Administration initiative
36
Policy Outlook for 2009-2010
• Causes for Optimism
– Public awareness remains high
– High Administration priority (after health care)
– Three energy policy dimensions mostly
aligned: security, environment, and economy
• Causes for Pessimism
– Financial crisis remains overwhelming
– Scale of energy challenges is enormous
– Easy to underestimate cost and complexity of
transformational change
•37
America’s Energy Future:
Technology and Transformation
National Research Council
Committee on America’s Energy Future
More information:
Peter D. Blair, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Division on Engineering & Physical Sciences
The National Academies
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Email: pblair@nas.edu; Ph: 202-334-2400
•38